JOHN AND JASPER HORSEY - TWO TUDOR OPPORTUNISTS
PETER WEBB
Part II
In the last edition we saw how Jasper Horsey prospered in the service of the Marquis of Exeter and subsequently of the King, whilst his elder brother John was prominent in the King’s service in Somerset and Dorset. We can now give closer scrutiny to some facets of John Horsey’s career in the turbulent 1530s and 1540s.
Documents relating to the period April, 1534 to April, 1536 show the fears of the country. The loyalty of the gentry is seen to be crucially important as the government manoeuvred to resolve the King’s ‘Great Matter’.
Writing to Cromwell on 11th April, 1534, Sir Giles Strangways refers to accusations made to him by certain persons regarding words spoken against the King and Queen Anne during the previous year by Sir John Horsey and Sir William Brownsope, parson of Holwall, seven miles east of Clifton Maybank. Sir Giles enclosed the accusation and commented on the case[25]. In his view the priest’s importance was minimal, since he was ‘a simple person of no great wit’. However, Strangways had taken sureties for his appearance before the Council and he remarks that the situation justified such an action. It would be of interest to discover whether John Horsey was examined at this time. Quite possibly such a rumour was totally discounted on the strength of his own and his family’s tradition of service, and more particularly, on the strength of his recent knighthood. Such allegations against a local parson and a prominent county figure closely associated with the Crown and Cromwell in particular, can be interpreted as a vain attempt by local conservative elements to discredit an agent of the Crown’s radical policies. At the end of the letter Sir Giles’s plea for the pardon of his erring kinsman, William, ‘now in sanctuary at Westminster’, stresses the links between Cromwell and those who would implement his revolution in their ‘countries’.
In the spring of 1536, popular unrest around Bridgwater brought Sir John to a commission of oyer and terminer at Taunton[26] attended by many other gentlemen of Somerset and Dorset. Trouble had been presaged the previous August[27] when John Horsey of Bridgwater (possibly Sir John’s cousin by his uncle Thomas[28]) reported that an Irishman had uttered sedition against Queen Anne. On 20th April Sir John Fitzjames reported to Cromwell that twelve ringleaders had been executed, that the country was now quiet and that the loyalty of the gentry was unquestioned. Fitzjames’ reference to a scarcity of corn suggests an economic, as well as a religious, reason for the unrest. Cromwell’s relationships with his local agents had not been found wanting as tension rose prior to the Pilgrimage of Grace.
Danger threatened once more during Henry VIII’s swansong as a warrior king. His invasion of Normandy and siege of Boulogne drew a counter-attack against the Isle of Wight on 19th July, 1545[29]. Warning fires and panic flashed across England. The French evacuated the island on 9th August but only returned home after raiding the Sussex coast and clashing indecisively with the English off Beachy Head.
At such a time Sir John’s duties were, as we have seen, predictably heavy. Apart from raising forces for service at home and abroad and providing the money to pay for them, Sir John was involved in pressing mariners for the King’s service. At a Privy Council meeting at Windsor on 14th October, 1546, the Treasurer of Augmentations was authorised by warrant to pay Sir John Horsey £12 15s. l0d. for prest and conduct of mariners to Portsmouth ‘at the King’s last being there’. Payment was made on 10th November[30]. Sir John’s apparently unprecedented role as a naval recruiter seems to reflect the peculiar and serious situation arising from the French invasion. However, the problems of manpower and money were not the least facing the King’s servants; equally important was the suppression of rumour and panic.
Sir John Russell, formerly a member of Cromwell’s short-lived Council in the ‘West, was fully occupied in stilling rumour and stifling panic inspired by fear of invasion from without, and of subversion from within. Writing from Exeter to Paget in London on 18th August, before the outcome of the clash off Beachy Head was known, Russell reported his state of vigilance and the daily improving condition of his preparations against the arrival of the French[31]. He mentioned the receipt of a letter that morning from Sir John Horsey signifying that ‘about Sherborne commandment was brought by men of honesty as is supposed’ to constables and tithingmen to search the houses of priests and to put all ‘weapons, books, letters and spits wherewith they roast their meat’ in safe keeping. As it was not known that the King or Council had commanded this, Russell reported that he had instructed Sir John to discover those who had begun the searches. Russell closed by quoting the rumours and ‘false lies’ current at the time for which he had pilloried the authors. Ironically, these referred to the capture and pillage of the Isle of Wight and the government’s intention to raise the siege of Boulogne, and thus bore more relation to truth than to fiction. The writer’s plea for the truth of such news seems entirely justified.
Sir John Horsey’s letter to Russell from Sherborne on 21st August (in reply to Sir John’s of 19th August) shows that the latter had acted promptly, not only in enquiring the origin of the searches, but in ordering their cessation. Bailiffs, constables, tithingmen were to trace the beginning of the matter within Somerset and Dorset. Should they pursue the trail out of the county, they were to report the matter to the Sherriff or nearest JP. Sir Thomas Arundell ‘being at my cousin Sydenham’s house Brympton’ was sent a copy of Russell’s letter at this stage.
Events had, however, moved with greater speed. Russell had written to Sir John once more on Wednesday, 19th August, presumably in reply to a further letter from Sherborne reporting that a second wave of searches was by then sweeping Somerset and Dorset. Russell’s second letter, sent from Exeter on 19th August, apparently arrived at Sherborne at 3 a.m. on Friday, 21st August, during what must have been a period of frantic activity for Sir John. He gave his version of the crowded events of the previous three days in his reply sent from Sherborne at 11 p.m. the following evening[32].
Having attempted to stabilise the situation around Sherborne, Sir John then proceeded to Dorchester. Here he found the justices led by Sir Giles Strangways and Sir Thomas Trenchard much exercised by the searches. Resourcefully they had placed a number of the searchers under bond for £100 to appear before the Council or the Dorsetshire JP’s if so required. Sir John enquired of Russell whether he should take similar bonds for the rest of Somerset and Dorset, ‘which will be very tedious’.
Opinion at Dorchester on Friday was that the searches had started beyond the county borders and that the whole shire was ‘thoroughly perused with the like searches’. Somerset too had been affected. Sir John referred to a letter from Sir Francis Bryant at Petherton who had ‘discreetly stayed the town of Bridgewater’ and examined the leaders of the search from the area around Huntspill and Burnham. Bryant had asked Horsey—presumably in his role of sheriff—to send for Robert Mydelham, the tithingman of Huntspill, and his fellow of Burnham. Sir John then requested instructions regarding the handling of inventories taken of the priests’ goods, their weapons and books, some of which had been returned to their owners by the JPs. The latters’ sympathies seem to have been with the priests who suffered the attentions of constables and tithingmen patiently, believing that they acted in the King’s name.
Finally, Sir John informed Russell that Sir Giles Strangways, Sir Thomas Trenchard and other Justices of Dorset and some of Somerset had ‘appointed to be at my house Melcombe next Sunday trusting to know your Lordship’s pleasure and to certify our doings’. Details of Sir John’s orders stopping the first and second searches and a copy of the bond imposed on the Dorset tithingmen were enclosed with the letter.
On the following day’ Russell wrote to the Council from Exeter sending Sir John Horsey’s letters and enclosures[33]. The Privy Council, meeting at Oking[34], had already discussed the problems arising from suspicions and panic in the country. As a result of their deliberations ‘sundry letters had been written to divers parts of the realm’ for ‘stay of search of priests’ houses if the case so required’. Quite clearly they viewed the activity as commencing in the Western Counties where ‘lewd persons had attempted such searching and making inventories in Somerset, Wells and those parts’. In his letter, Russell reported the situation in Somerset and Dorset. Responsibility for the affair, in his mind, lay with the constables and tithingmen who had acted precipitately on the supposition, rather than on the substance, of King’s command. These, ‘being ignorant people took no advice of justices or gentlemen’ and had run as headlong a search ‘as Russell had ever heard of’. The next day, 23rd August, probably before they had received Russell’s report, the Council allowed themselves time to ‘peruse writings brought by one Brynkburne, Justice of the Peace in Wiltshire, touching search of priests’ houses and certain lewd writings of priests’, and then to order the parties according to law[35].
Although further research is necessary, it seems likely that once the situation had been contained, the more pressing needs of war fully occupied the minds of the Council and that the affair was allowed to drop. A number of points of interest arise from the narrative of events as it stands at the moment. The episode stresses the importance of such a man as Sir John whose authority as a sheriff of two counties extended beyond that of the individual justices. In particular, the vital role of the gentry’s leadership of those inferior officers—the constables and the tithingmen—is emphasised, as is the difficulty of speedily communicating with them. From the point of view of the Horsey family, the apparent absence of Sir John’s elder son may be associated with the hostility implied towards him in his father’s will the following year. However, it may also be that young John Horsey, who was known to have entered the King’s service at the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace, was then actively involved in France. No mention is made of Roger Horsey (d. 1551) in the correspondence between Sir John and Russell. Certainly, Sir John appears to have been short-handed at Sherborne in August. His fellow justices at Dorchester seem to have acted more resourcefully in placing certain tithingmen and constables in bond. His isolation may explain why he viewed similar action throughout the shire as a very tedious prospect.
In a wider context, the affair underlines the tensions created by the religious changes of the previous decade; to the obvious fear of invasion was now added the more insidious threat of subversion from within. In the new situation this particular episode seems to be one example, albeit at a time of great national danger, of the type of localised anti-Catholic panic which frequently beset individual areas during the century and a half following the Reformation. Finally, the reaction of Russell and the Council to the situation perhaps reflects the ambiguous and intermediate stage reached in the progress towards Reformation in England. The wish to see the country at peace with itself is totally understandable. However, the obvious sympathy shown to a harrassed priesthood must seem in large measure to have been inspired by the doctrinal conservatism of a king currently the ally of the papal champion, Charles V.
As the servant of the Crown in his locality one might naturally expect that Sir John would have maintained the close contacts with the Court enjoyed by his father. An examination of the son’s career suggests that the relations he forged with Cromwell were particularly close. We have noted the gifts presented ostensibly to Wolsey[36]; possibly the donor’s intention was to ensure the friendship of Wolsey’s chief administrative agent. While it is perhaps naïve to suppose that in the summer of 1529 the gentry were insufficiently perspicacious to predict Wolsey’s imminent fall, it must surely have been a riskier gamble to support Cromwell as his successor. Some evidence however exists to suggest that Cromwell’s hurried election for Taunton in November, 1529 may not have been entirely the work of Sir William Paulet[37]. The Pardon Roll of 1510 describes Robert Horsey of Taunton as merchant and clothier. Three persons surnamed Horsey—John, Robert and Margaret—all of Taunton had wills proved at Canterbury in 1524, 1537 and 1542 respectively[38]. Conceivably, Sir John Horsey and his possible kinsmen assisted Paulet in the election. Whatever may be the case regarding his early connections with Cromwell, John Horsey’s knighthood on the occasion of Anne Boleyn’s coronation confirms the existence of close links by June, 1553[39]. Moreover we are able to piece together a record of John Horsey’s service to the Crown in the extraordinary events set in train by its first minister. They are, of course, the natural corollary to, and only explanation of, the territorial gains he was to achieve by 1540.
In July, 1532, the year of Cromwell’s emergence as first minister following his arrival on the Council in January, 1531, John Horsey and Sir Giles Strangways were instructed by the King to assist Doctor Lee in the election of a new prior at Montacute[40]. This can be seen as an attempt to prepare the ground for a possible dissolution by installing an abbot willing to surrender the house. Such was the case at Sherborne. Doctor Lee must surely be the colleague of Doctors Tregonwell, Layton, London, Bedyll and Ap Rice who were Cromwell’s commissioners in the general visitation which began in 1535.
In July, 1533, the King ordered John Horsey, Thomas Trenchard, Thomas Baskett and John Rogers to make inquisition post-mortem into the lands and heir of Henry Stafford, late Earl of Wiltshire, and Cecilia, his wife[41]. This would seem of merely routine in significance were it not for the fact that the title was to be bestowed on Anne Boleyn’s father. In January, 1535, as noted earlier, Horsey, by now Sir John, appears as a commissioner for Tenths of Spiritualities[42]. His letter to Cromwell of May, 1535[43], regarding the election of a new abbot of Sherborne provides more than circumstantial evidence of the close relations between the two. Tregonwell’s letter of November, 1538[44], informing Cromwell of his quarrel with Sir John over the spoils of Milton Abbey confirms this impression. Following the crisis year of 1536, Sir John is found listed amongst those present at the christening of Prince Edward on 12th October, 1537[45]. This was a subdued affair, held at Hampton Court because of the plague[46]. It is, therefore, the more noteworthy that Sir John was present. Further intimations of his standing at Court came in November, 1539, when his name appears amongst the knights and esquires expected to attend Anne of Cleves’ arrival at Greenwich. More specifically, his services were required as one of fourteen ‘Whifflers for order keeping’ at that great and climactic event in Cromwell’s career. Such a responsibility seems fully in keeping for one who had that same year been appointed to the new Council in the West[47]. It is known that Sir Thomas Wyatt (1503-42) was a friend of Sir John. A strong tradition exists that the courtier poet is buried near the tomb of Sir John and his son in Sherborne Abbey church[48]. There are good grounds therefore, to credit Sir John Horsey with close links with Cromwell and the Court. Whether or not he and his father supported Cromwell’s candidature at Taunton in 1529, Sir John, as he was soon to become, was the active and well-rewarded agent of Cromwell. In an area of strategic importance such as Somerset arid Dorset, where the church held as high a proportion of land as in any similar area in the country, his loyal help was doubly valuable. Following Cromwell’s removal in 1540, Sir John’s links with the Court would seem to run via his neighbour, and eventual overseer of his will, Sir John Russell[49]. At present the extent of relations with his brother, Jasper, who by 1540 had become steward to Anne of Cleves, is open to speculation.
In examining the rewards of Sir John’s loyalty to the Court, it is insufficient merely to assess the increase of his estates. From the various sources it is possible to see some of the manoeuvring which brought such rich rewards, to discover Sir John acting as a middle man in the dispersal of monastic lands, and to come to some conclusions regarding the value of lands required in relation to the sums paid for them.
Briefly, Sir John inherited the manors of Horsey, Clifton Maybank and Melcombe, a moiety of the manor of Charlton Mackerell, and some other parcels of land from his father. We also know that the Maybank inheritance brought estates in Sussex which, as we shall see, were of value in his dealings with Cromwell and the Court of Augmentations. At his death, Sir John’s estates in Somerset and Dorset showed the addition of nine more manors – Armingswell, Wyke, Pynford, Thornford, Over Compton, Nether Compton, Bradford, Dollaford and the other part of Charlton Mackerell, as well as sundry other lands[50].
The first acquisitions emphasise the close relationship between Sir John and Sir John Russell. In 1538 they were jointly granted the manors of Stoke-sub-Hamdon and Curry Mallett[51]. In February, 1540, Sir John, by then Lord Russell, was licensed to alienate the manor of Cary Fitzpaine, the moiety of the advowson of the parish church of Chariton Mackerell and all lands there to Sir John Horsey[52]. In fact, 1540 was the year of great rewards. In February of that year, Sir John received Yarlington manor, several miles north of Bruton, with some specified lands at Shipton Moor, on a 21-year lease at a rent of £14 2s. 8d.[53]. This property had been part of the lands of the attainted Countess of Salisbury who was to be executed in April, 1541, following the discovery of the Neville conspiracy. The first substantial instalments of Sir John’s rewards appeared in March, 1540, and were drawn from the dissolved houses of Sherborne, Henton, Cannington and Bindon.
From Sherborne Sir John was granted the house and site of the former monastery with its demesne lands in fee of reversion for £1,242 13s. 9d. The site of the church, steeple and churchyard of the monastery which were included in the demesne were later sold by Sir John to the townspeople of Sherborne for £320. The demesne territory lay principally between Sherborne and Clifton Maybank, and comprised ‘a mill within and near the said site and all woods on the premises, the wood called Iverwood near the meadow called Ivermead, the manors of Bradford and Wyke, the lands called Trill in the parish of Clifton, a watermill and all messuages, lands, etc., belonging to the later monastery’. The land was to be held ‘with all its appurtenances in as full a manner as John Barstable the last abbot of Sherborne held them[54]’.
Simultaneously he received three 21-year leases on properties which had belonged to Sherborne Abbey. The rent for Corsecombe Grange is not mentioned in Augmentation records; for the site of the manor of Wyke he paid £16 l0s. 6d. and for certain lands there belonging to the monastery £5 l0s. 4d. in rent[55]. Additionally Sir John vas granted the rectory and advowson of Bradford at certain stated rents. To complete his control of Bradford he received lands in that parish formerly belonging to Cannington Priory, Somerset, comprising a tenement and lands there whose tenant, one George Rede, had paid a rent of 8s. to his previous landlords.
By these grants from Sherhorne Abbey and Cannington Priory, Sir John had gained sole control of the Manor of Clifton and became the master of the north side of the Yeo Valley between his seat and the town of Sherborne. Although these were handsome and convenient gains indeed, more Sherborne lands were to come in 1543[56]. In July of that year, Sir John, described in the grant as the King’s servant, received in fee for £1,451 2s. 9¼d. the lordship and manors of Thornford, Over Compton and Nether Compton (with Stowell Court, Nether Compton) and the chief messuage, farm and manor of Pynford on the north bank of the Yeo to the east of the town. In the same grant he received the lordship and manor of Prymsley in Dorset, which had belonged to Buckland nunnery, Somerset. His acquisition of Thornford extended the Horsey territory along the south bank of the River Yeo to within a mile of Sherborne. Acquisition of Nether Compton and Over Compton took the family estates north from Bradford across the Sherborne-Yeovil Road. The net effect was to create a compact estate dominating the Yeo Valley between Sherborne and Yeovil.
However, the Grant of March, 1540 was not solely concerned with the lands of the late Abbey of Sherborne[57]. From Henton Priory near Warminster Sir John received the ‘mansion called Longleat, in Wiltshire, and all the houses thereto belonging, and divers lands in the parishes of Longbridge Deverill, Longleat and Horningsham, the lands called Baycliff in the nearby parish of Maiden Bradley, and a close of land called Chantry Close and 60 acres of land in certain fields in Hill Deverill parish’. From Bindon Abbey in Dorset he received the manor or Grange of Creech in the Isle of Purbeck ‘lately in the tenure of Oliver Lawrence’. After two months Sir John was licensed to alienate the Longleat Estate to John Thynne of London, ancestor of the present Marquis of Bath, whilst in May he received a similar licence to alienate the Creech estates to its tenant Oliver Lawrence[58]. Although we have no figures for the prices on resale, his brief tenure of the estate suggests that Sir John was engaging in land speculation with the approval of Cromwell and the Court of Augmentations. Indeed the opportunity for a profit on resale would seem to be the sole reason for these particular grants, since both properties were too distant from the family’s existing estates to be managed conveniently. Although these gains were obviously ample reward for loyal service to the Crown during a time of particular danger, documentary evidence illustrates some of the exertions necessary to ensure that they materialised. The grants of March, 1540 and July, 1543 show that, King’s servant though he was, Sir John had to pay the most inconsiderable sum of £2,793 6s. 6¼d. to the Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations[59]. To put this sum into context, we learn from Sir John’s will that the annual value of four manors, Melcombe, Armingswell. Wyke and Horsey, amounted to £144 6s. 7d. It seems likely that the profits of his speculations over Longleat and Creech helped cover his outlay. However, it would be of interest to ascertain the arrangements made for payment to the Court of Augmentations. Despite the inevitable lowering of the price of monastic lands on a buyer’s market, liquidity must have been a problem for its purchasers. Its solution may be found partly in Sir John’s sale of his manor of Horton Maybank in Sussex, with its associated lands, for the sum of £4l0. This sale, for which Cromwell’s accounts show that full payment was made in December, 1538, no doubt provided useful cash in hand[60]. The fact that Cromwell subsequently sold the property at a profit of £l50 to one Richard Bellyngeham might suggest that the initial deal was so strongly in Cromwell’s favour as to be considered a bribe.
Direct evidence of bribery exists in two letters to Cromwell, one in 1535 by Sir John, the other in 1538 by his neighbour and member of the King’s learned counsel, the lawyer Dr. John Tregonwell. The first letter, written nearly four years before the dissolution of Sherborne Abbey, gives clear indications of Cromwell’s careful preparation for his attack on Church property and some of the realities of his links with the gentry. On 9th May, 1535, Sir John wrote to Cromwell to thank him for offering his friend, Dean John Barstable, the appointment of Abbot of Sherborne, the previous incumbent, Dean John Mere, having resigned. Such a communication seems innocent enough[61]. Sir John was, after all, chief steward of the monastery. However, having explained that he was unable to come to Cromwell since he was appointed to look to the taxing of the clergy, he promised to come shortly ‘to make payment secretly between your mastership and me unto you of 500 marks according to my promise’. Obviously, Sir John, as a member of the Commission of Tenths and Spiritualities for Dorset, Somerset and City of Bath, was not undertaking a disinterested survey. Rather he was preparing the ground so that the dissolution of Sherborne when it came in March, 1539 would be to his benefit. We know that Sir John’s preparations were successful in that he was able to receive the abbey lands at what must have been a very reasonable price. His friend, John Barstable, whose compliant surrender of his house must have been appreciated by Cromwell, was shortly appointed to the rectory of Stalbridge. This living, which handsomely supplemented Barstable’s pension, may well have been in the gift of William Thornhill of Thornhill in that parish - a close associate of Sir John’s. A letter of 3lst July, 1539 from John Harres to Lady Lisle gives evidence of a close relationship between Sir John and William Thornhill[62]. Having been imprisoned at Salisbury as a captured outlaw, Harres wrote that ‘there will be a session of three weeks of deliverances by the procurance of Sir John Horse and Master Thornelle, who will spend £100 to hang me unless you help me’. The affair requires further investigation. In 1546, both Thornhill and Barstable were nominated amongst the overseers of Sir John’s will. Former steward and late abbot had thus enjoyed a mutually rewarding relationship.
The prospect of the Sherborne windfall did not entirely satisfy Sir John, nor was the effect of 500 marks upon Cromwell easily forgotten. On 22nd November, 1538, following a heated exchange with Sir John, an anxious John Tregonwell addressed himself to Cromwell. The quarrel originated over the anticipated spoils of the demesne lands belonging to Milton Abbey. These bordered Sir John’s most southerly manor of Melcombe Horsey. In Tregonwell’s eyes they were to be the reward for the work which he was to undertake with William Petre during the early months of 1539 in securing the surrender of monastic houses in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. The 40 surrenders that he achieved were such that ‘he hardly left a house standing in the whole south-west[63]’.
Understandably, therefore, Tregonwell felt great concern about Sir John’s challenge[64]. His neighbour (wrote Tregonwell) had, on the previous evening, suggested that they divide the Milton Abbey demesne between them. Tregonwell replied that he was powerless since Cromwell had offered him the entire demesne and had sent instructions to this effect to the abbot in the King’s name. Infuriated by these stonewalling tactics, Sir John blustered that he would secure the whole estate for himself, even if it would cost him 500 marks. Furthermore, he continued, Tregonwell was both unkind and ill-mannered to interfere in an area ‘so near his nose’ which he clearly considered his own preserve. Tregonwell concluded that although he was reluctant to trouble Cromwell with such a complaint, he feared that his rival’s money and influence might prevail.
At present it is impossible to say whether Sir John pursued the affair. If he did so, he was unsuccessful. The Milton Abbey lands passed into Tregonwell’s possession[65]. Such disputes were doubtless repeated throughout the country as the impropriating jackals anticipated their prey and nervously eyed their rivals. On a question of political morals this particular episode is of interest in that Tregonwell’s suggestion that his patron and master might be open to crude financial influence seems less than tactful to our eyes. The frankness with which he wrote clearly underlines the truth that bribery and its ilk were the accepted lubricants of political and administrative activity in the sixteenth century.
Despite his failure at Milton, Sir John had, by zealous service and thrusting ambition, achieved a fourfold increase in the number of the family’s manors. On his death in 1564, his son’s estate, which was largely identical to the one he had inherited from his father, was reckoned to amount to at least 20,000 acres - a handsome testimony to Sir John’s opportunism. Such estates required careful disposal. Sir John’s will, dated 20th December, 1546, and proved a month later, was of exceptional length and is a valuable source of information on his family, employees and friends[66].
Sir John made handsome provision for his wife, Joan. She received, for her lifetime, the manors of Horsey and Wyke. These were given to her ‘in full recompense and satisfaction of her whole jointure and dower’. On her death in 1552 they would pass to her eldest son, John, as head of the family. As her residence, Joan was to receive the parsonage of Bradford during her natural life. Sir John had, in fact, only recently obtained this property. In a grant of 1546, William Beryff and John Molton were licensed to alienate the rectory and advowson of the vicarage of Bradford, Dorset, to Sir John Horsey[67]. Joan was allowed a substantial share of the accoutrements of Clifton Maybank for her widowhood. The will provides that this shall be a third of ‘all and singular my household stuff and includes ‘my feather bed, bolsters, my pillows of down’ and ‘my pair of sheets’. To support her in her widowhood Joan was also to receive ‘twenty kine and one bull and all my stock and store of sheep going and being in or upon my manors of Wyke in the county of Dorset and also the moiety of my stock of sheep in or upon my manor of Clifton[68]’.
To his young son, Roger, and his lawful heirs was bequeathed the manor of Chariton Mackerell in Somerset. He was also to share the advowson with his elder brother who was given the right to present to the living when it next became vacant. Roger did not live long to enjoy his estate since he died in July, l55l[69]. To his daughter, Eleanor, Sir John left no specific bequest. Instead, amongst the debts and legacies payable from the profits from the manor of Melcombe, he included the dowry of 200 marks he owed Sir Thomas Trenchard on Eleanor’s marriage. His other daughter, Elizabeth, had secured her future by adopting the religious life and, like her Aunt Anne, a nun at Barking, had become a victim of the dissolution. Elizabeth Horsey, who received a pension of5 when the convent at Shaftesbury was dissolved in March, 1539, was left a legacy of £40. To his cousin and neighbour, John Leweston, he bequeathed Crown leases on certain lands formerly the property of Sherborne Abbey which adjoined the Leweston estates.
To his eldest son and executor, Sir John left the remainder of his estate. Chiefly, this comprised the manors of Prymsley, Pinford, Thornford, Over Compton and Nether Compton, Sherborne, Bradford, Clifton and Dollaford. Once his father’s debts and legacies had been paid, the manor of Melcombe would be his as well. On his mother’s death in 1552 her estates reverted to him as did his brother’s manor of Charlton Mackerell in 1551. The will suggests a certain estrangement between father and son. Young John Horsey was of adult years on his father’s death. Although he has no doubt profited from his father’s prominence at Court, he seems to have developed a career of his own occupying him beyond the confines of Somerset and Dorset. During the Pilgrimage of Grace he was involved in arranging purveyance at Nottingham[70]. In 1538 his name appears in a memorandum by Cromwell ‘of the gentlemen of my Lord Privy Seal’s mete to be preferred the King’s Majesty’s service’. In December of the same year, Cromwell’s accounts indicate that 20s. were paid to ‘Mr. Horsey for bringing two geldings’. The same person is recorded as having given Cromwell a New Year’s Gift of £5 in January, 1539. Although the possibility of confusion between father and son exists, the difference in rank between knight and esquire appears significant. Moreover, Cromwell’s accounts make the distinction between Sir John and Mr. Horsey. Although he was nominated as a JP for Dorset in 1540, and as a commissioner for Gaol Delivery at Dorchester in 1542, his attentions seem to have been elsewhere. In 1543 he was included in the Commission of the Peace in Nottinghamshire; in the following year he was listed as a commissioner for Gaol Delivery at Nottingham Castle. His absence from his father’s side during the alarms of August, 1545, has already been mentioned[71].
The will clearly indicates that Sir John doubted whether his son would honour his intentions. Accordingly, he was to be bound within one month after his father’s decease in a bond of £5,000 to the overseas of the will ‘for the true performance of the same’. Should he refuse either to act as executor or to enter into the bond required of him, Sir John required that the manors of Armingswell and Melcombe should be sold along ‘with the stock and store and increase in or upon the same’. The residue was then to be distributed to his widow, his younger son and two daughters under the direction of his overseers or of any six of them.
Every member of Sir John’s household was to receive a half-year’s wages after his death. Some, possibly men of long service, were bequeathed rent-free tenure of land for their life-times. Others, whose services were obviously greatly valued, were offered annuities dependent upon their continued service. Amongst smaller bequests Richard, the undercook, received £1 6s. 8d. in money.
Whilst his will gives information regarding Sir John’s successful stewardship of the family estates, the absence of a comparative study of the estates of his neighbours and contemporaries precludes the use of acreages as a yardstick of his wealth and influence amongst them. His eminence in local affairs however suggests that his estates were at least comparable with those of his most powerful neighbours. Whilst physical comparison based upon acreage would be desirable, it is currently easier to assess political power than it is to quantify the landed property upon which that power was based. Indubitably the overseers to Sir John’s will bear full testimony to his status. Amidst a brace of esquires Sir Thomas Trenchard and Sir William Paulet gave precedence to Lord Russell, the Lord Privy Seal.
Finally, his particular achievement as head of the family is symbolised by the transference of the Horsey’s place of sepulture from Yetminster to Sherborne, and by the handsome tomb in the north aisle of the abbey raised after 1564 in his own and his son’s memories.
The two sons of John Horsey illustrate contrasting examples of routes to fortune seized by many in the turmoil of Henry VIII’s later years. As eager and able opportunists, their circumstances enabled them to exploit the exceptional chances for profit offered in two distinct, though ultimately connected, areas. Jasper progressed from his post as a gentleman in a noble household to a similar appointment in the King’s household. John, the King’s and more particularly Cromwell’s servant, reaped in his own ‘country’ the handsome rewards attracted by loyalty and service at that time. His achievement laid the basis for the immense wealth and influence enjoyed by the Horseys until their sudden and apparently irrevocable decline in the 1630s. If John’s gains were immeasurably greater than his brother’s, so too were his initial assets and opportunities. To Jasper, as the younger son, must be accredited the accumulation of an estate which, however modest, served as a foundation for his son, George, to make prosperous marriages and, thereby, to acquire considerable estates in Hertfordshire[72]. The final statement of the two brothers’ achievements came in 1588 when Jasper’s grandson, Ralph, united the family’s Hertfordshire and West Country estates.
Fig. 1. Sketch map of Sturminster Marshall Park.
REFERENCES
Numbering follows on from part one.
25. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry Viii 1509-1547, ed. Brewer, Gairdner and Brodie (1862-1910. 1920) (hereinafter L and P) VII 480.
26. L and P Add 1063.
27. L and P IX 136.
28. Visitation of Dorset, Pedigree 1623.
29. Scarisbrick Henry VIII (1967), Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 455.
30. L and P XXI Pt. II 266 and 775.
31. L and P XX Pt. 11159.
32. L and P XX Pt, 11186.
33. L and P XX Pt. II 190.
34. L and P XX Pt. II 188.
35. L and P XX Pt. II 196.
36. L and P II Pt. III 5746. L and P V 1139 (29). L and P VII 480.
37. A. G. Dickens, Thomas Cromwell and the English Reformation, 1959. English Universities Press, p. 34.
38. Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills. Index. L and P Vol. I Pt. 1 438.
39. S. E. Lehmberg, The Reformation Parliament, p. 179 and 42. Quotes L and P VI Pt. 1601 (4).
40. L and P V 1163.
41. L and P VI g. 929 (4).
42. L and P VIII g. 149 (59, 79).
43. L and P VIII 693.
44. L and P Add 1372.
45. L and P XII Pt. II 911 (ii).
46. W. Walder, Henry VIII, Octopus, 1973, p. 47. L and P XIV 572, XV 14.
47. L and P XI Pt. I 398.
48. The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, John Hutchins, MA, 1870, IV, p. 421. Calendar of state Papers Domestic, 1547-1580, 58. Subsequently Sir John’s nephew, Edward, and the poet’s son, Thomas, were involved in the rebellion of 1554. Repercussions were felt in Sherborne, for on 30th January Sir John Rogers of Bryanston and others reported to Secretary Petre that they had proclaimed the Duke of Suffolk, the Carews and Sir Thomas Wyatt as traitors at Sherborne Market, and published the articles of the Queen’s marriage. Finally, they vouched for the younger Sir John’s fidelity. The loyalty of an inheritor of such monastic spoils, who was at the same time a family friend of one of the traitors, could hardly have been less than suspect.
49. Abbey Church, Sherborne, Guide. Will of Sir John Horsey quoted Hutchins IV, p. 427-429.
50. Will quoted Hutchins IV, p. 427-429.
51. L and P XIII Pt. I g. 1115 (61).
52. L and P XV g. 282 1, 5.
53. L and P XV g. 282 73.
54. L and P XV Vol. XV 436 (54).
55. L and P XV 1032 56B.
56. L and P Vol. XVIII Pt. 1 981 (78).
57. L and P XV 611 (47).
58. L and P XV 733 (29).
59. L and P XVIII Pt. 1 981 (78).
60. L and P XVI Pt. II 782.L and P XV 1027 (30).
61. L and P VIII 693.
62. L and P XIV Pt. 111336.
63. Reference to G. W. O. Woodward, Dissolution of the Monaterie, Blandford, London, 1966.
64. L and P Add 1372.
65. Hutchins IV, p. 427-429.
66. Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, Alen 40, Hutchins IV, p. 427-429.
67. L and P XXI 717 (13).
68. Visitation of Dorset 1623.
69. Visitation of Dorset 1623.
70. L and P Xl 1155 (5). L and P XIII Pt. 111184. L and P XIV Pt. 11782.
71. L and P XV 831 (34). L and P XVII g. 1012 (22). L and P XVIII Pt. 1 226 (48). L and P XX Pt. 1 622 (314).
72. Visitaion of Dorset 1623.
